Question 1: I have a question regarding the veneration of the high place instead of the Holy Table upon crossing the midline of the Church.

Response 1: There is certainly no need to create a false dilemma with an “either or”. No one is being asked to choose the High Place over the Holy Table. Byzantine liturgical space has various foci and numerous liturgical appointments, e.g. iconostasis, ambo, Holy Table, prothesis table, high place, cathedra, bema, solea, naos/nave, narthex, etc. Liturgy is always complex and rich in symbols. Unlike a sign, which generally has but one direct meaning, symbols convey many meanings simultaneously. For example the Holy Table is the tomb and the throne of Christ, it is a table (namely the focus of a meal), and an altar (namely the focus of a sacrifice). It is a tomb for the relics of martyrs. It is washed (baptized) with water, wine, rose water, and consecrated with Holy Chrism. It is clothed in fine linen (burial shroud, swaddling clothes, baptismal garment), bound with a cord (think of Christ and his witnesses the martyrs being led away to death), and finally covered with a cloth usually of rich brocade for upon it the King of Glory is enthroned.

Upon the Holy Table, minimally there rests the Gospel Book and a hand cross. Is there an “either or” between these and the Holy Table? Certainly not. Hopefully, one can see that to participate in liturgy it is fundamental to have a mind that can perceive various meanings at various levels simultaneously: it is to have a mind that can read symbols and not be conflicted.

Response 2: I will address this question in the context of the Ruthenian recension of the Byzantine rite. In 1944 the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches published Ordo Celebrationis Vesperarum, Matutini et Divinae Liturgiae Iuxta Recensionem Ruthenorum. This text was to accompany the Liturgicon of 1942 published by the same congregation. It provides further rubrics to the Liturgicon. Under General Rules section 11 we read: It is also proper for the deacon to show reverence by inclining his head and shoulders a little to the celebrating priest before leaving the Altar to sing the ektenias, and when the deacon returns to the Altar. A commentary on this text published by Eastern Christian Publications in 1996 on page 133 reads: In practice, the deacon normally asks the priest’s blessing in the usual way when he leaves the Altar for an ektene. When he returns, the deacon bows to the high place and then to the celebrant.

In order to understand the rubrics and the commentary we must first understand what the high place is and its significance. There are a number of axes in a Byzantine church. There is a vertical axis below the dome of the naos or nave, and another vertical axis below the dome of the bema over the Holy Table. There is a horizontal axis running from the west to the east with its focal point being the high place. Do not mistake the bishop’s cathedra for the high place, although they are related they are distinct.

The current Liturgicon of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church published in 1988 reads on p57 the following:

As the Thrice-holy Hymn is being sung, the priest and the deacon join in the recitation . . . .

The deacon then says to the priest:

Master, proceed.

They depart for the place on high. As the priest proceeds, he says: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

Deacon: Master, bless the chair on high.

Priest: Blessed are You on the throne of glory of Your kingdom, Who sit upon the cherubim, always, now and for ever and ever.

Note that it is not proper for a priest to ascend to the place on high place[sic] or to sit there. He is to sit to the south of the throne on high.

It is apparent that the high place is a symbol of the eschatological dimension of the liturgy, a symbol that most are not conscious of, but is essential to all Christian liturgies. The rubric following the priest’s blessing reveals that its author confuses the bishop’s cathedra with the high place. The high place is the eschatological throne of Christ so how is it possible for a human celebrant to ascend to it physically, even one who is said to be in persona Christi Capitis?

Why is the eschatological so important in the liturgy? Precisely because the Divine Liturgy is an encounter between heaven and earth, it realizes the Kingdom in the here and now. The Kingdom of Heaven is the telos or end of the Christian life; an end that has no end: it is a transfiguration of the human person by grace through theosis. It is simply tragic that so few believers are consciously attentive to the eschatological reality. It would be good to read the New Testament with care and see how saturated it is with an eschatological consciousness. Then, I need to ask myself why am I so inattentive to it? Plainly, it is there in the liturgy for we read in the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom: Remembering, therefore, this salutary commandment, and all that was done for us: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming: We remember what in chronological time is yet to come but in kairos (decisive time; a point where one makes a life changing decision) which is the time of the liturgy, is imminently present. We need to pay attention to the actual reality of the liturgical texts and not our own preconceived notions that lead to a confused hermeneutic.

(Christ on the Cherubim Throne in Glory, early 15th C - St. Andrei Rublev.)

Let us not loose sight of the way in which Eastern Christians pray. It has a direction precisely because of its eschatological dimension. The whole assembly faces the east. Why?

____________________________________________________________

The following is from:

http://www.orthodoxprayer.org/Facing%20East.html

Why We Pray Facing East

Facing east is an ancient tradition, grounded in sure knowledge about the final eschatological coming, first told us by the Lord, and then repeated by an angel after the disciples had just seen the Lord ascend into heaven:

“For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Mt. 24:27)

“…Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)

We believe that our Lord ascended on the Mount of Olives, and when He comes back, He will come on a cloud from the east. Therefore, we face east when we pray.

There are other important biblical references to the east. The following is a non-comprehensive list.

The wise men saw signs of the imminent birth of Christ from the east:

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.” (Mt. 2:1-2)

Ezekiel saw the “glory of the Lord” when facing east:

“And the glory of the Lord came into the house, by the way of the gate looking eastward:” (Ezek. 43:4)

The Jews faced eastward during their worship [in the Temple in Jerusalem]:

“And if the prince should prepare as a thanksgiving a whole-burnt-peace-offering to the Lord, and should open for himself the gate looking eastward, and offer his whole-burnt-offering, and his peace-offerings, as he does on the sabbath-day; then shall he go out, and shall shut the doors after he has gone out.” (Ezek. 46:12)

There are lots of references in the fathers to prayer facing east (see below an excerpt from St John of Damascus concerning this). It has been a uniform part of our tradition since before Apostolic times.

It is not without reason or by chance that we worship towards the east. But seeing that we are composed of a visible and an invisible nature, that is to say, of a nature partly of spirit and partly of sense, we render also a twofold worship to the Creator; just as we sing both with our spirit and our bodily lips, and are baptized with both water and Spirit, and are united with the Lord in a twofold manner, being sharers in the Mysteries and in the grace of the Spirit.

Since, therefore, God is spiritual light, and Christ is called in the Scriptures Sun of Righteousness and Dayspring, the east is the direction that must be assigned to His worship. For everything good must be assigned to Him from Whom every good thing arises. Indeed the divine David also says, Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth: O sing praises unto the Lord: to Him that rideth upon the Heavens of heavens towards the east. Moreover the Scripture also says, And God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed: and when he had transgressed His command He expelled him and made him to dwell over against the delights of Paradise, which clearly is the west.

So, then, we worship God seeking and striving after our old fatherland.

Moreover the tent of Moses had its veil and mercy seat towards the east.

Also the tribe of Judah as the most precious pitched their camp on the east.

Also in the celebrated temple of Solomon, the Gate of the Lord was placed eastward.

Moreover Christ, when He hung on the Cross, had His face turned towards the West, and so we worship, striving after Him.

And when He was received again into Heaven He was borne towards the east, and thus His apostles worship Him, and thus He will come again in the way in which they beheld Him going towards Heaven; as the Lord Himself said, As the lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west, so also shall the coming of the Son of Man be.

So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship [facing] towards the east. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten.

Now back to the rubric in section 11 of Ordo Celebrationis. It is in need of more detail for it does not say where the deacon is to stand to make the reverence. Unclear rubrics can be interpreted in more than one way. However, the commentary helps, especially the directions on how the deacon returns. The leave taking of the deacon should mirror the return of the deacon. Thus, the deacon to leave the bema/sanctuary proceeds on the south side to about the middle of the bema; he crosses himself and bows to the high place (the eastern point above the bishop’s cathedra), he turns to the celebrant and bows, (the celebrant blesses the deacon for the deacon should do nothing without a blessing), and the deacon exits via the north deacon’s door.

It is certainly a function of rubrics to keep liturgical celebrations from falling into disorder. Disorder has a rather wide range of behaviors. What I described above is orderly and dignified. It shows reverence and is consciously eschatological. It is not a veneration of the high place for it is not an object or an actual physical point in the church. The high place is an eschatological reality that is present in this age but is yet to be fulfilled in the parousia, in the age to come.

(The Last Judgement)

Question 3: What would you say to someone who would argue that to venerate the high place is to negate, ignore or diminish acknowledgement of the real presence of the Christ in the Eucharist?

Response 3: I would say that a false dichotomy is being created here. The sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not in competition with the eschatological presence of Christ. Christ is present in the Gospel Book that rests on the Holy Table. When the priest or deacon kisses it, do they show a lack of reverence to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? This is one-dimensional thinking and it is what needs to change. Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. writes in The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites, 2008 on p415 concerning reservation and veneration of the Eucharist in the Christian East the following:

“In general one can say that in the Christian East today “Eucharistic devotion” means to receive Holy Communion. This was once true also in the pre-Medieval West. The idea that the reserved eucharist was something one “visited” or prayed to outside the context of Holy Communion was unknown throughout Christendom in the first millennium. The Christ to whom one prays is everywhere present; what is reserved in the tabernacle is the sacramental presence of his Body and Blood as spiritual food under the species of consecrated bread and wine, one of the many forms of Jesus’ real presence among us — but by no means the only one. That is why Eastern Christians act in the same way upon entering a church regardless of whether or not the eucharist is reserved. They make their reverence, visit and kiss the icons, say their prayers, because for the Eastern Christian every church is the house of God, a sanctuary made holy by its consecration, by its icons, its relics, by the liturgical celebrations and prayers that sanctify it day after day, and not just by the presence of the reserved eucharist. Present-day Roman Catholic devotional attitudes are quite different. The first thing Western Catholics will ask on entering a church is if the reserved eucharist is present — almost as if they think God is absent if it is not.”

Question 4:Which is the centre of worship in the Church, the Holy Table (called the Throne in Ukrainian) or the high place? Is bowing to the high place confusing this taxis?

Response 4: I think this question has already been addressed above. These questions reveal a legalistic and minimalistic perspective in a context in which they do not belong. This is a dangerous mindset to bring to liturgical services. Because liturgy is immersed in symbol and ritual by its very nature, it is complex. There is no confusion in the sacramental reality but the questions because they are framed in an “either or” wording reveal a mentality and spirituality that is reductionist. The questions reflect a confused view of the liturgical-sacramental reality. Why attempt to put the infinite, incomprehensible, and unfathomable God is a box?

(Apse mosaic - San Vitale - Ravenna -6th C)

Question 5: Is this practice at odds with our current Typikon/Ordo?

Response 5: I trust that the responses above demonstrate that the practice of the deacon crossing himself, bowing to the high place and then to the celebrant is nothing but typical of authentic Byzantine piety. That is not to say it is, as Fr. Taft has so clearly pointed out, Western Catholic piety. But why should it be?

January 12, 2016

“How would all of this apply in case of someone belonging to a minor order in the Byzantine tradition, e.g. a Byzantine lector occasionally or regularly assisting at Latin Mass (such as singing the psalms)?”

Protodeacon David replies:

I am going to presume by “Latin Mass” you are referring to the liturgical rites permitted by Summorum Pontificium, and by this you mean bi-ritual faculties. My comments will be based on these presumptions.

A person needs faculties if he or she is doing something that requires such which is usually to have some type of jurisdiction to act. The lector or to use the Byzantine designation of reader/cantor requires no faculties to act according to the liturgical texts.

Please note that no one needs faculties to serve as reader/cantor in the Byzantine rite. The vast majority of readers/cantors in the Byzantine rite have never received cheirothesia. Laymen and women, and non-clerical male monastics, as well as female monastics have for centuries served as readers/cantors in the Byzantine liturgical services.

(Cheirothesia of readers/cantors. Note they are wearing the short phelonion. It looks like a small white cape. This will be the only time they will wear this vestment. It will be removed and replaced with the sticharion.)

A reader/cantor who has received cheirothesia according to the Byzantine rite of a particular Church can if invited serve occasionally as a reader/cantor in another rite of the Catholic Church. There should be at least the presumed consent of both his own bishop and of the pastor/rector of the church in which he will serve. Note that such a lector has no “right” to serve in another Church sui iuris. Even within his own Church sui iuris, the reader/cantor cannot go from one parish to another without the consent of his bishop. When a man receives cheirothesia as a reader/cantor in the Byzantine rite, he is assigned to a specific parish in which he will fulfill his ministry under the direction of the local pastor. He has no “right” to serve, as reader/cantor in any other parish be it of his own rite or the rite of another.

I would ask the reader/cantor: Do you have the blessing at least presumed of your own bishop to serve at a Latin Mass?Do you have the consent at least presumed of the pastor of the parish in which the Latin Mass is to be celebrated? If he answers no to either of these questions, then the reader/cantor should not serve. If he answers yes to both, then he may serve. If he does serve, he is to vest in the vesture of his own rite, namely, the reader’s sticharion. One may not wear the vestments of a rite to which one does not belong.

(Following the bestowal of the short phelonion, the reader/cantor chants a prokeimenon and a reading from the liturgical text known as the Apostolos. This reader/cantor [Cyril Kennedy] received cheirothesia from his bishop [His Grace David Motiuk] at Holy Spirit Ukrainian Catholic Seminary in Ottawa, for St. Josophat Cathedral in Edmonton.)

It is also important to note that Summorum Pontificium and this means the liturgical books that are permitted to be used by it, are governed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. According to the law, one does not need to be “ordained” to function as a lector in the Roman rite in either of its two forms. And this is also true of the Byzantine rite which is governed generally by 1990 Code of Canons of the EasternChurches, and the 1996 Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, as well as the particular law of each Church sui iuris. For the Eastern Catholic Churches most of the liturgical law is found in the liturgical books of each Church sui iuris.

If a reader/cantor of a Byzantine rite Church is to act as a lector regularly in the Roman rite, he must have the permission of his own bishop, and the Roman rite bishop. This is not a matter of faculties but a matter of taking on a public liturgical role in a Church sui iuris to which one does not belong.

December 06, 2014

Part C: Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. 6 January 1996

75. The minor orders and the diaconate are not mere formalities in preparation for presbyterial ordination. They provide a specific service in the Church, and as such are to be effectively exercised in a definitive way by those who do not intend to enter the presbyterate, and in a sufficiently ample way by those who are to be ordained presbyters. This is especially valid for the diaconate. In this sense, misgivings should not be had toward conferring minor Orders and even the diaconate on those who comport themselves well, are suitable and appropriately prepared for the responsibility they assume, and declare themselves available for the service of the Church, even if they must continue to live with their families and practice their own trades. Thus, the ministers necessary for a dignified and fitting celebration of the liturgy are obtained, avoiding the practice, different also in this case from the Latin Church in which it is no longer in use, of having ministers of a higher range perform the liturgical functions that should be reserved to those of lower range (the most frequent case is that of presbyters functioning as deacons), or of permanently appointing to the laity liturgical tasks expected of a minister: practices to be eliminated.

76. The diaconate was instituted not for priesthood but for the service of the bishops and presbyters. Deacons were, in fact, once considered as their hands and eyes; or, as expressed by Ignatius of Antioch, the deacons manifest in harmony with them to the faithful people “the commandment of the Lord.” [Cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smymaeans VII, I SCh 10 A, 138.] A similar perspective, preserved in the Orthodox Churches and in the process of being recuperated in the Latin community, is to also be placed in full light in the Eastern Catholic Churches. The re-establishment of its liturgical and extra-liturgical mission appears, in fact, to be very beneficial.

Both sections 75 & 76 are part of a canonical instruction that shapes a general framework for liturgical life and practice in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Each of these Churches is to take these general prescriptions and apply them to their own rite in a more particular manner.

Section 75 makes it clear that the diaconate and minor orders are not “mere formalities in preparation for presbyteral ordination”.

It stresses that they are to be exercised in a definitive way by those who will remain in these orders, and in a sufficiently ample manner by those to be ordained presbyters. What time line it does not define.

This section from a liturgical standpoint makes the point that is also an ecclesiological perspective, that these “ministers [are] necessary for a dignified and fitting celebration of the liturgy.” I conclude from this that without deacons and those in minor orders (e.g. subdeacons & readers), the liturgical celebrations are neither dignified nor fitting. Rather strong words.

It also states unequivocally the “ministers of a higher range (presbyters functioning as deacons) are not to perform the liturgical functions of those of a lower range nor should the laity be permanently appointed to tasks of a liturgical minister”.

These practices are to be eliminated:

1. Liturgical services that require deacons and those in minor orders being served without them.

2. Having ministers of a higher range perform the liturgical services of those of a lower range.

3. Permanently appointing liturgical tasks to the laity that should be performed by liturgical ministers.

If this came about in practice it would make in many of the Eastern Catholic Churches a radical change. We are 18 years past the issuance of this Instruction and a long way from its full implementation. And this makes me imagine there are those who possibly through passivity are simply obfuscating.

This obfuscation is also being justified by those who practice the Extraordinary Form of the Roman liturgy where these liturgical practices are embraced and rigorously defended as ‘traditional’.

Liturgical and theological latinization is so difficult for the Eastern Catholic Churches to avoid. It is no easy task to achieve what Orientalium Ecclesiarum 17, desired, that the ancient established practice of the sacrament of orders in the eastern churches may flourish again.

(Is this a Latin rite deacon or a subdeacon? What are the clues?)

Part D: What is the current situation?

Prior to Vatican II there were little more than a handful of deacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches that were not destined for the presbyterate.

Some 454 of these deacons are outside of the ‘traditional’ homelands, primarily in North America, and this accounts for 78.8% of these deacons.

I would also direct your attention to the Syro-Malankara Church, (439,818 faithful); and the Syro-Malabar Church, (3,899,379 faithful), yet it appears that both have ignored O.E. 17 for the last 50 years. Hopefully, they don’t need to do anything in a timely manner.

The Ukrainian Catholic’s have a ratio of 1 deacon to every 33.7 presbyters but the Chaldeans have a ratio of 1 deacon to every .073 presbyters.

I suggest that you go to the website and make your own conclusions about the numbers.

A few questions to contemplate:

What has impeded the vision and implementation of Orientalium Ecclesiarum and Instruction for Applying the Code…?

How does the diaconate as a permanent rank in the hierarchy change the very dynamics in the diocese and the parish?

What is needed to move forward to embody the vision of the diaconate as set forth by Vatican II for the Eastern Catholic Churches?

At a lower level of the hierarchy are to be found deacons, who receive the imposition of hands “not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry.” [Constitutions of the Egyptian Church, III, 2: ed. Funk, Didascalia, II, p.103, Statuta Eccl. Ant. 37-41: Mansi 3, 954.] For strengthened by sacramental grace they are dedicated to the People of God, in conjunction with the bishop and his body of priests, in the service of the liturgy, of the Gospel and of works of charity. It pertains to the office of a deacon, in so far as it may be assigned to him by the competent authority,

to administer Baptism solemnly,

to be the custodian and distributor of the Eucharist,

in the name of the Church, to assist at and to bless marriages,

to bring Viaticum to the dying,

to read the sacred scripture to the faithful,

to instruct and exhort the people,

to preside over the worship and the prayer of the faithful,

to administer sacramentals,

and to officiate at funeral and burial services.

Dedicated to works of charity and functions of administration, deacons should recall the admonition of St. Polycarp: “Let them be merciful, and zealous, and let them walk according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all.” [St. Polycarp, Ad Phil. 5,2: ed. Funk, I, p .300: It is said that Christ “became the ‘diaconus’ of all.” Cf. Didachè, 15, I: ibid. p. 32. St. Ignatius, Martyr, Trall. 2, 3: ibidl, p. 242. Constitutiones Apostolorum 8, 24, 4: ed. Funk, Didascalia, I, p. 580.]

Since, however, the laws and customs of the Latin Church in force today in many areas render it difficult to fulfill these functions, which are so extremely necessary for the life of the Church, it will be possible in the future to restore the diaconate as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy. But it pertains to the competent local episcopal conference, of one kind or another, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, to decide whether and where it is opportune that such deacons be appointed. Should the Roman Pontiff think fit, it will be possible to confer this diaconal order even upon married men, provided they be of more mature age, and also on suitable young men, for whom, however, the law of celibacy must remain in force.

What does this document say about the diaconate in the Eastern Catholic Churches?

The diaconate is part of the hierarchy of the Church.

It is received by the imposition of hands; what is known in the Constantinopolitan tradition as cheirotonia.

“not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry” This does not seem to fully accord with the long standing understanding in Eastern Christianity that the diaconate is part of the priesthood. There appears to be more than one theological position on this matter and there is no full agreement between East and West. (Cf. John Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia, (Brookline MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2009.)

The sacrament of the diaconate confers grace.

Deacons are strengthened by the grace of the sacrament.

The diaconate exists for the “People of God”. It does not exist for the individual deacon and his sanctity.

“in conjunction with the bishop and his body of priests…” The Church is a communion of persons hierarchically structured and the deacons serve in union with the bishop and his presbyters.

The deacon’s service is in liturgy, the Gospel, and works of charity. The diaconate if being fully lived must be lived in all three of these areas. They all work together in a harmonious synergy.

What the deacon does, he must be assigned to do. He does not act in his own name or on his own authority but he acts as the “agent” of the competent authority, viz. his bishop and in a lesser degree his pastor.

(Pope Francis & Patriarch Bartholomew)

A Comparison of the Liturgical Functions

of Deacons East and West

Liturgical Function[1]

Latin Church[2] pre Vatican II

Latin Church post Vatican II

Eastern Churches[3] pre Vatican II

Eastern Churches post Vatican II

Solemn Baptism

No[4]

Yes

No cf. note 4

No cf. note 4

Custodian [5]and Distributer of the Eucharist

Yes[6]

Yes

Yes[7]

Yes cf. note 7

Bless Marriages

No

Yes

No[8]

No cf. note 8

Viaticum

No

Yes

No[9]

No cf. note 9

Read Scripture

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Instruct and exhort the faithful[10]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Preside at worship

Qualified

yes [11]

Yes

No

No

Administer sacramentals

Qualified yes[12]

Qualified yes[13]

No

No

Officiate at Funerals

No

Yes

No

No

This table provides a quick overview of diaconal liturgical functions in the various Churches of the Catholic communion, and shows where they are the same and where they are not. Lumen gentium 29, certainly seems to extend all these functions to all deacons regardless of their particular Church with the following provision: “in so far as it may be assigned to him by the competent authority”. A deacon must follow the liturgical prescriptions of his own particular Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches by tradition have not assigned to the deacon solemn baptism, the blessing of marriages (such marriages would be invalid, even if a deacon of the Latin Church attempted to give the blessing), presiding at worship, administration of sacramentals, and officiating at funerals.

The Synod of Uk. Cath. Bishops in Canada in a draft text of 1987gave to deacons a wide range of faculties similar but not identical to the Latin deacons. (Cf. pp118-123 of David Motiuk, Eastern Christian in the New World. Ottawa. Saint Paul University. 2005.)

We can also see that there was a greater similarity in diaconal liturgical functions between East and West prior to Vatican II.

[1] As listed in Lumen Gentium 29.

[2] The Latin Church following the Council of Trent had these rites: Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Dominican, Premonstratian, Carmelite, Cistercian.

It is obvious from a liturgical perspective that the deacon in the West since Vatican II has when no priest is present also taken on the liturgical role of the protos, i.e. the one who presides. This is certainly a departure from the traditional role of the deacon. In the East the deacon assists the protos and never presides. In the West when a presbyeter/bishop presides, the deacon assists but presides when no protos is present and in a limited way becomes the protos. This raises a number of questions.

Should one do within the liturgy what one does not do regularly in the whole of the Church? No, what one does within and outside of the liturgy should cohere.

What is the liturgical role that the deacon is ordained for? The liturgical role of the deacon is to act as an assistant, an agent, and an angelos of the proestos.

What is the original relationship of the deacon to the bishop and the presbyters? Someone who gets something done on behalf of the one he is a diakonos for. Someone who acts as an intermediary or an agent in a transaction. The angelos of the proestos.

Can one be a deacon without being a deacon to or for someone else? Not in any real sense for orders define relationships. If you ask a man is he a deacon and he responds yes, but he has no bishop, to say the least you should be puzzled.

Does the Catholic Church have a coherent harmony with the diaconate in East and West? Yes and no; for on the liturgical level there is some confusion.

November 22, 2014

I would like to compare Orientalium ecclesiarum 17, with Lumen gentium 29.

What does O. e. 17 say? In order that the ancient established practice of the sacrament of orders in the eastern churches may flourish again, this sacred council ardently desires that the office of the permanent diaconate should, where it has fallen into disuse, be restored.(21) The legislative authorities of each individual church should decide about the subdiaconate and the minor orders and the rights and obligations that attach to them.(22)

Section 17 of Orientalium ecclesiarum, (November 21, 1964)can be outlined in the following manner:

There is a “desire or a wish” on the part of the holy council/synod that the permanent diaconate be restored in the Eastern Catholic Churches. However, it is but a “desire or a wish”, thus, the diaconate as a permanent order does not need to exist. Why?

The reason for this restoration is that the “ancient discipline/legislation concerning the sacrament of orders in the Eastern Churches may regain its force/flourish once more”.

There is a recognition that the permanent diaconate “has fallen into disuse”.

We need to ask what is the text referring to by the words, “the ancient established practice of the sacrament of orders in the eastern churches”. There is no clear time framework in the text in which to place this unless the footnotes provide us with a clue. These notes refer to canonical and patristic texts ranging from the early 4th to the late 9th centuries. It can be presumed based on these footnotes that this period establishes the paradigm for the diaconate in the Eastern churches, at least from the perspective of Orientalium ecclesiarum No. 17. A general examination of the footnotes also reveals a legislative tone in regards to the practice of the diaconate. (For the footnotes check this blog.)

The reader should note not only the texts referred to but the many texts and types of texts not mentioned in the footnotes. There are no references to the New Testament and the concept of diakonia found therein or of the N.T. references to the office of the deacon.

The many references to the diaconate found in the pre-Nicene church are also missing. Why not refer to the diaconate as found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.? Again, we should ask why are the early church orders, e.g. The Didache, Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, Didascalia Apostolorum, Apostolic Church Order/Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Testament of Our Lord, absent? Why no mention of the diaconate in these patristic writings of the East? Possibly, the reader will be able to ascertain the mindset of this decree not only from what it says, but also from what it does not say. (The footnotes tend to a law perspective while Orientalium ecclesiarum 17 is suggestive rather than prescriptive.)

The next phrase in the text that deserves attention is “ardently desires that the office of the permanent diaconate should, where it has fallen into disuse, be restored.”

Let us begin to parse this. The term “permanent diaconate” is not generic to the Eastern or Western Churches. This is a concept that arises since Vat. II in order to make a distinction between those who have declared that they have a vocation to the presbyterate and thus, must pass through the minor orders and the “transitional diaconate” to arrive at the priesthood, and those who have declared that they have a vocation to the diaconate.

The adjective “permanent” refers not to the deacon but to the order of the diaconate itself. All of the Apostolic orders; episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate are permanent.

It is the order and not the person in the order that is permanent.

Each of the Apostolic orders in its own unique way serves in the ministries of liturgy, word and charity. When there has been a lack of deacons in the church, the Apostolic diaconal ministries of liturgy, word, and charity have suffered.

In various ways the diaconal ministries of liturgy, word, and charity have been assumed by or transferred to either the order of the presbyterate or to the laity.

In the Divine Liturgy we see that most of the diaconal functions, when no deacon is present to serve are assumed by the celebrant or concelebrants, and to a minor extent by the lay altar servers.

However, the diaconal functions do not disappear in the liturgy, word or charity. That is because the diaconal apostolic ministry is essential to the very nature of the church and her mission in the world.

(What follows below is the first part of a paper delivered Oct 18, 2014 at the University of St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto. This international conference was titled The Vatican II Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches Orientalium ecclesiarum - Fifty Years Later.)

(Deacon Joseph Koczera)

Part A: What did the diaconate look like at the time of Vatican II?

In the East it was both a transitional order on the way to the presbyterate and a permanent order. In the West it was definitively transitional.

It had been this way for at least a millennium primarily due to the cursus honorum, (a training period). Why be anything other that a priest? There was a presupposition that the presbyterate was the only real order in the Church, as everything before it was preliminary. The Low Mass in the West also contributed to the demise of the diaconate for in it only the priest was necessary. This leads to the break down of liturgy as a corporate action and the Church as a corporate reality.

The cursus honorum arose both in the East and the West in order to provide sufficient and adequate training for the clergy in the post-Constantinian Church when clerical ministry no longer made one a candidate for martyrdom but rather had the potential of a social and economic benefit. In response to this, there arose a pattern where a candidate for the presbyterate would pass sequentially through all the minor orders and the diaconate over a given period of time before ordination to the presbyterate. (For a detail study refer to John St. H. Gibaut. The Cursus Honorum: A Study of the Origins and Evolution of Sequential Ordination. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 2000.)

The Council of Trent had called for a renewal where the diaconate, and the minor orders would be real and permanent but nothing came of this.

Eventually the cursus honorum gave way to seminary training.

The Eastern Churches that entered into communion with the Church of Rome were quick to adopt the Roman seminary paradigm for the education and training of their own clergy. As a result of this, the diaconate and minor orders were thought of in the Eastern Catholic Churches as no more than stepping-stones to the real goal – the holy priesthood.

The Codex iuris canonici 971 § 1,(1917) did not permit anyone to remain in minor orders or the diaconate. Everyone was to proceed to the presbyterate.

In the Eastern Cath. Churches there was a slight difference for Cleri sanctitati (1957) did not require clerics to advance to the priesthood but permitted them to remain in the diaconate and minor orders.

We know the picture in the West and to a large extent in the Eastern Catholic Churches: the diaconate was transitional and as one can easily image it is next to impossible to develop a real and living paradigm of diaconal ministry where the goal of all clerical vocation is the priesthood. The diaconate was a canonical or legal requirement that lead to the real order, the presbyterate.

Robert Clément, S.J. writing in 1966 shortly after the promulgation of Orientalium ecclesiarum addresses the situation of the diaconate in both the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. (Cf. “Situation Présente du Diaconate en Orient” in P. Winninger et Y. Congar. Le Diacre Dans L’Eglise et Le Monde D’aujourd’hui. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. 1966. 63-70.) He states that among the Chaldean Catholics there are 5 deacons and 3 for the Syrians. He mentions that among the Maronites deacons can be found in the monasteries but he gives no numbers.

In my own Church, the Ukrainian Catholic, the paradigm following the Union of Brest became the Roman one. In the first half of the 20th c. Metropolitan Andrew Sheptysky and his brother, Blessed Clement implemented the diaconate as a permanent order among the Studite monastics, but again there were only a few. There were also a few ordained for St. George’s Cathedral in Lviv. During the period of persecutions following Soviet suppression of the Ukrainian Greco Catholic Church, the diaconate in practice was again reduced to a transitional order, sometimes for no more than a day.

Clément mentions that in the Orthodox Church in Russia in 1914 there were 15,210 deacons, 50,150 presbyters and 149 bishops for 100 million faithful in 67 dioceses. Yet in the Orthodox Church in Greece, Clément tells us that it is rare to find deacons who will serve permanently in that order. There, deacons are awaiting ordination to the presbyterate or are found on the staff of bishops where they frequently go on to the episcopate itself; sometimes only a day or two after presbyteral ordination. We can easily see that among the Eastern Catholics and among some of the Orthodox that the diaconate as a permanent order “had fallen into disuse”.

Why was this the case? There seems to be a number of reasons.

When there is no remuneration for deacons as there is for presbyters, the diaconate as a permanent rank declines. The Russian Orthodox Church paid the deacons not only for their liturgical services but also had them employed as teachers of religion in the schools. In the Eastern Catholic Churches as in the Orthodox Church in Greece it was often difficult to find funding for priests let alone deacons.

The Eastern Catholic Churches adopted an educational paradigm for their clergy that was closely modeled after the Post-Tridentine practice as found in the Latin West. In this case the minor orders and the diaconate were conceived of and practiced solely as transitional steps to the real goal of the presbyterate.

Why be a deacon if you can be a priest? This mindset develops from number 2 above. The minor orders and the diaconate are seen as only canonical requirements for ordination to the presbyterate, and the canonical practice is no longer reflecting a period when the cursus honorum meant a real training period of many years in each of the minor orders and the diaconate. For example a man was not to be ordained a deacon before 25 years of age and not a presbyter before 30 years of age. Therefore, he would have at least 5 years of real diaconal service and training before ordination to the presbyterate. The cursushonorum existed as a functional training ground for clergy before the seminary system that followed the Council of Trent. But following Trent the training was shifted to the seminary and the cursus honorum lost its original raison d’être. This being the case, a man often spent very little time in the diaconate or any of the minor orders. The requirements became little more than legalistic and had little to do with real ecclesial life.

Reason number 3 above leads to a mindset of “he who can do more can do less”. Thus, the priest can do everything a deacon can do and more. When there is no deacon present at liturgical services, the diaconal functions are assumed either by the priest or lay servers, or lay readers. At more solemn services among the Eastern Catholics it was not uncommon for a priest to vest as a deacon and serve as such. This was the common practice in the Latin West also, for there is an understanding in Western theology that the priest is still a deacon after ordination to the presbyterate. (This matter is still to be addressed fully in Catholic theology and liturgical practice. This is not only a sacramental matter but also one that goes to the heart of the apostolic ministerial practice, pneumatology and ecclesiology.)

Thus, we can see that a number of diverse factors and historical contingencies led to the reality of the diaconate as a permanent order in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well as some of the Orthodox Churches being little more than a vestige. What was established by the Apostles as part of the apostolic ministry had atrophied in most local Churches into little more than a transitional period for the purpose of fulfilling a canonical obligation.

The liturgical tradition as exemplified in the texts bore witness to an active diaconate but the reality was something quite different. This certainly raises serious questions about the self-consciousness of the Church. It seems that the bishops of Vatican II were acutely aware of the need to address this matter and as we will see their reasons were rooted in the patristic witness to the apostolic Church.

I. He is pleased to have been consulted by the bishops of Illyricum on important questions.

The brotherly love of our colleagues makes us read with grateful mind the letters of all priests; for in them we embrace one another in the spirit as if we were face to face, and by the intercourse of such epistles we are associated in mutual converse. But in this present letter the affection displayed seems to us greater than usual: for it informs us of the state of the churches, and urges us to a vigilant exercise of care by a consideration of our office, so that being placed, as it were, on a watch-tower, according to the will of the Lord, we should both lend our approval to things when they run in accordance with our wishes, and correct, by applying the remedies of compulsion, what we observe gone wrong through any aggression: hoping that abundant fruit will be the result of our sowing the seed, if we do not allow those things to increase which have begun to spring up to the spoiling of the harvest.

II. Following the examples of his predecessors he nominates Anastasius metropolitan of Illyricum.

Now therefore, dear brother, that your request has been made known to us through our son Nicolaus the priest, that you, too, like your predecessors, might receive from us in our turn authority over Illyricum for the observance of the rules, we give our consent and earnestly exhort that no concealment and no negligence may be allowed in the management of the churches situated throughout Illyricum, which we commit to you in our stead, following the precedent of Siricius of blessed remembrance, who then, for the first time, acting on a fixed method, entrusted them to your last predecessor but one, Anysius of holy memory, who had at the time well deserved of the Apostolic See, and was approved by after events: that he might render assistance to the churches situated in that province whom he wished kept up to discipline. Noble precedents must be followed with eagerness that we may show ourselves in all things like those whose privileges we wish to enjoy. We wish you to imitate your last predecessor but one as well as of your immediate predecessor who is known equally with the former to have both deserved and employed this privilege: so that we may rejoice in the progress of the churches which we commit to you in our stead. For as the conduct of matters progresses creditably when committed to one who acts well and carries out skillfully the duties of the priestly position, so it is found to be only a burden to him who, when power is entrusted to him, uses not the moderation that is due.

III. Ordinees must be carefully selected with especial reference to the canons of the church.

And so, dear brother, hold with vigilance the helm entrusted to you, and direct your mind's gaze around on all which you see put in your charge, guarding what will conduce to your reward and resisting those who strive to upset the discipline of the canons. The sanction of God's law must be respected, and the decrees of the canons should be more especially kept. Throughout the provinces committed to thee let such priests be consecrated to the Lord as are commended only by their deserving life and position among the clergy. Permit no licence to personal favour, nor to canvassing, nor to purchased votes. Let the cases of those who are to be ordained be investigated carefully and let them be trained in the discipline of the Church through a considerable period of their life. But if all the requirements of the holy fathers are found in them, and if they have observed all that we read the blessed Apostle Paul to have enjoined on such, viz., that he be the husband of one wife, and that she was a virgin when he married her, as the authority of God’s law requires,[then ordain them]. And this we are extremely anxious should be observed, so as to do away with all place for excuses, lest any one should believe himself able to attain to the priesthood who has taken a wife before he obtained the grace of Christ, and on her decease joined himself to another after baptism. Seeing that the former wife cannot be ignored, nor the previous marriage put out of the reckoning, and that he is as much the father of the children whom he begot by that wife before baptism as he is of those whom he is known to have begotten by the second after baptism. For as sins and things which are known to be unlawful are washed away in the font of baptism, so what are allowed or lawful are not done away.

IV. The metropolitans must not ordain hastily nor without consulting their primate.

Let no one be ordained a priest throughout these churches inconsiderately; for by this means ripe judgments will be formed about those to be elected, if your scrutiny, brother, is dreaded. But let any bishop who, contrary to our command, is ordained by his metropolitan without your knowledge, know that he has no assured position with us, and that those who have taken on themselves so to do must render an account of their presumption. But as to each metropolitan is committed such power that he has the right of ordaining in his province, so we wish those metropolitans to be ordained, but not without ripe and well-considered judgment. For although it is seemly that all who are consecrated priests should be approved and well-pleasing to God, yet we wish those to have peculiar excellence whom we know are going to preside over the fellow-priests who are assigned to them. And we admonish you, beloved, to see to this the more diligently and carefully, that you may be proved to keep that precept of the Apostles which runs, "lay hands suddenly on no man."

V. Points which cannot be settled at the provincial synod are to be referred to Rome.

Any of the brethren who has been summoned to a synod should attend and not deny himself to the holy congregation: for there especially he should know that what will conduce to the good discipline of the church must be settled. For all faults will be better avoided if more frequent conferences take place between the priests of the Lord, and intimate association is the greatest help alike to improvement and to brotherly love. There, if any questions arise, under the Lord’s guidance they will be able to be determined, so that no bad feeling remains, and only a firmer love exists among the brethren. But if any more important questions spring up, such as cannot be settled there under your presidency, brother, send your report and consult us, so that we may write back under the revelation of the Lord, of whose mercy it is that we can do ought, because He has breathed favourably upon us: that by our decision we may vindicate our right of cognizance in accordance with old-established tradition and the respect that is due to the Apostolic See: for as we wish you to exercise your authority in our stead, so we reserve to ourselves points which cannot be decided on the spot and persons who have made appeal to us.

VI. Priests and deacons may not be ordained on weekdays any more than bishops.

You shall take order that this letter reach the knowledge of all the brethren, so that no one hereafter find an opportunity to excuse himself through ignorance in observing these things which we command. We have directed our letter of admonition to the metropolitans themselves also of the several provinces, that they may know that they must obey the Apostolic injunctions, and that they obey us in beginning to obey you, brother, our delegate according to what we have written. We hear, indeed, and we cannot pass it over in silence, that only bishops are ordained by certain brethren on Sundays only; but presbyters and deacons, whose consecration should be equally solemn, receive the dignity of the priestly office indiscriminately on any day, which is a reprehensible practice contrary to the canons and tradition of the fathers, since the custom ought by all means to be kept by those who have received it with respect to all the sacred orders: so that after a proper lapse of time he who is to be ordained a priest or deacon may be advanced through all the ranks of the clerical office, and thus a man may have time to learn that of which he himself also is one day to be a teacher.

Dated the 12th of January, in the consulship of Theodosius (18th time) and Albinus(444).

(Please note the discrepancy in the dating of the letter by one day.)

( Metropolitan John of Pergamon and Pope Benedict XVI.)

Commentary:

Pope Leo’s letter dated January 13, 444 covers a range of questions that he has been consulted upon by the bishops of Illyricum. He begins by establishing his authority on the basis of his office. He stresses that conduct in pastoral matters must be based on precedence. Those that are to be ordained must be properly trained and their lives are to conform to the canonical requirements; such being founded on the teachings of the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy. He exhorts to “lay hands suddenly on no man.” And where matters cannot be settled on the provincial level then they are to be referred to Rome. By this point he stresses a collegial understanding of authority in the Church, where Rome is the court of last resort.

After emphasizing that bishops are to be ordained only on a Sunday so likewise should presbyters and deacons be ordained on a Sunday. Why? This is because Sunday is the day on which the whole Church, i.e. the Catholic Church assembles. It is unlike the weekdays, not only because it is the day of the Lord’s resurrection, it is the eighth day, the day of the eschaton, the day of the Kingdom, and even more importantly it is the day on which the whole Church assembles. Ordination is not for the sake of the ordinee but for the sake of the whole Church.

I would like to draw attention to these words of St. Leo the Great, presbyters and deacons, whose consecration should be equally solemn, receive the dignity of the priestly office… Yet we read in Lumen Gentium 29. the following, [a]t a lower degree of the hierarchy stand the deacons, on whom hands are imposed “not for the priesthood, but for the ministry”. (The quote is found in Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aegyptiacae, III, 2: ed. Funk, Didascalia, II, p.103. Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua, 37-41: Msi 3, 954) Current teaching according to the Code of Canon Law does not seem to see the diaconate as part of the priestly office, [t]hose who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity. (Pope Benedict XVI. Omnium in Mentem. 26 Oct. 2009.) This was a recent change to Can. 2009 of the Codex Iuris Canonici. Is there a lack of coherence found here? The well-known Orthodox theologian, Archdeacon John Chryssavgis in Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia: The Diaconate Yesterday and Today (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. 2009. p.11) appears to be much closer to Pope Leo’s thinking when he writes, [s]o unless we consider the priestly ministry as historically originating and organically developing form the diaconal state or degree, we run the risk of falling either into the Scylla of “despotism” or else the Charybdis of “clericalism.” While the essential and central place of the bishop ought always to be retained, in accordance with the theology and practice of the early Church, it is also important to reclaim the unique significance of each of the three priestly degrees, again and always in accordance with the teaching and practice of the Apostolic Church.

In The Office for the Setting-Apart of a Reader and a Cantor found in the Archieratikon of the Byzantine Rite, the bishop exhorts the one who has just be set apart with the following words: Child, the first degree of the priesthood is that of reader… When liturgy is no longer seen, understood and lived as theologia prima it is easily possible to create a philosophical theology that does not readily cohere with the liturgical tradition.

We should also note these words of St. Leo, . . . so that after a proper lapse of time he who is to be ordained a priest or deacon may be advanced through all the ranks of the clerical office, and thus a man may have time to learn that of which he himself also is one day to be a teacher. The training of those selected for ministry at the time of this blessed pope was so unlikely the methods used today. In the pre-Nicene Church generally ordination was direct, i.e. if one was chosen to be a presbyter, one was directly ordained to that order without first proceeding through ‘minor’ orders/ministries and the diaconate before ordination to the presbyterate. If we refer to 1 Timothy we can see that a candidate was chosen based on how one lived one’s life in Christ. During the 4th century with a great influx of converts and the establishment of the hierarchy by the state as quasi civil servants, hierarchical positions in the Church also became positions of secular power that were coveted. The response to this was a training ‘program’ to safeguard the interests of the Church from those who sought secular power for their own ends via the Church. The Church took over from the secular civil service and governmental structures of the Roman Empire what was known as the cursus honorum. Using this method it became customary for a candidate to proceed through each order of the hierarchy. Thus, a candidate for the presbyterate would be a reader/cantor, subdeacon and deacon before ordination to the presbyterate. The idea was that the candidate would spend sufficient time in each order as a time of training, so that he would develop and be prepared to succeed to the next rank. This would also allow the bishop to scrutinize the candidate and hopefully weed out the ambitious power seekers. The fault with this method however, is that while there were reasonable interstices between ordinations, these time periods were often disregarded. This led to the reception of orders primarily to fulfill canonical requirements. This practice disassociates orders from a real and cohere practice of the orders. It makes the order an end in itself rather than a ministry for the building up of Christ’s Body. For a detailed history of the cursus honorum refer to John St H. Gibaut, The Cursus Honorum: A Study of the Origins and Evolution of Sequential Ordination( New York: Peter Lang. 2000) and Sequential or Direct Ordination? (Cambridge: Grove Books. 2003). James M. Barnett in The Diaconate: A full and Equal Order (Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press. 1995. p. 104.) writes, [t]he decline of the diaconate springs more from the development of the idea of ‘cursus honorum’ than from any other single factor. This of course needs to be explored in depth to ascertain if this claim is true. It is likely at the route that leads to the question often posed to young deacons: When are you going to be ordained? And it certainly does not help the Church to achieve and maintain a real and cohere practice of orders.

July 22, 2013

A reader asked: Is it possible for a Latin Catholic to
become a subdeacon according the Eastern rite to serve the liturgy in a
monastery?

By: Protodeacon David Kennedy

His Grace Bishop Benedict is being vested for Vespers with the assistance of a subdeacon and a protodeacon. (St. Elias Church, Brampton: photo - M-L. Turi)

There is no one Eastern rite
Catholic Church but some twenty Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, each having its own canon law. Among the canonical Orthodox there are many
more than twenty Churches or canonical jurisdictions, each having its own canon
law in regards to the subdiaconate.

While
there is no strict uniformity in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches in
regards to minor orders, the subdiaconate exists as a minor order.

In
the Byzantine rite, the subdiaconate is conferred usually during the Pontifical
Divine Liturgy, after the vesting of the bishop but before he washes his hands,
as the hand washing will be the first liturgical duty of the newly ordained
subdeacon.

Byzantine
Catholic bishops usually require laymen who desire to be ordained subdeacons to
successfully complete a training program.
In the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Toronto a candidate must be
recommend by his pastor and take a part-time one-year training course.

August 03, 2012

The primary rational that Orientalium ecclesiarum gives for the restoration of the diaconate in the Eastern Catholic Churches is “in order that the ancient legislation (discipline) concerning the sacrament of orders in the Eastern Churches may regain its force.” It is here that an examination of footnote no. 21 of the text needs to take place in order to gain an understanding of the phrase ‘ancient legislation’.

We will begin with Canon 18 of Nicaea (AD 325) that reads:

“It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. Let them receive the eucharist according to their order after the presbyters from the hands of the bishop or the presbyter. Nor shall permission be given for the deacons to sit among the presbyters, for such an arrangement is contrary to the canon and to rank. If anyone refuses to comply even after these decrees, he is to be suspended from the diaconate.”

According to Canon 18, the following practices must be addressed and corrected:

Deacons distributing communion to presbyters. (It mentions nothing of deacons distributing communion to bishops, although it seems that this would also be prohibited.)

Deacons receiving communion before bishops. (It corrects this abuse by stating that deacons are to receive communion after the presbyters.)

Deacons sitting among presbyters. (It is not explicitly clear if this is only a prohibition in liturgical assemblies or in all circumstances but given that the rest of the canon focuses on ‘communion’, it might be presumed that the context is liturgical.)

The rational for correcting these liturgical abuses are:

Deacons do not ‘offer’ the body of Christ. There is to be found in this canon a distinction in liturgical function or role between the deacon and the presbyter. Although the canon does not explicitly tell us what the deacon’s liturgical function is, (more about that below from G. Dix) it tells us that the function of the presbyter is to ‘offer’. There is a distinction between offering and receiving; and between offering and distributing.

This distinction can be found in the writings of St. Justin the Martyr, Apologia I (lxv): “When the president has given thanks and all the people have assented, those whom we call deacons give a portion of the bread over which thanksgiving has been offered, and of the wine and water, to each of those who are present; and they carry them away to those who are absent.” At the time of Justin did the deacons distribute the eucharist not only to the laity but also to the ‘president’ of the assembly? If so, is Nicaea prohibiting an early practice?

Robert Taft in his essay Receiving Communion – A Forgotten Symbol? draws our attention to the East-Syrian practice in the canonical collection of Gabriel of Basra near the end of the 9th century:

Question 19: When there is only one priest and one deacon, what should they do, for in one canon it prescribes that the deacon should not give communion to the priest?

Answer: In this matter the Catholicos Iso’yahb has determined as follows. It is not allowed that the deacon give communion to the priest, who is distinguished from the deacon by his higher rank. So if no other priest is there to give communion, but only a deacon, the situation should be handled according to a fine custom, namely: the priest takes the ‘coal’ [=consecrated particle] from the altar and put it in the hands of the deacon. Then he bows before the altar, takes the ‘coal’ from the deacon’s hands with the fingers of the right hand, places it on the tips of the two fingers of the left hand, and brings it back to his right palm. The deacon says only: ‘The Body of our Lord.’ Likewise the chalice: he gives it into the hands of the deacon, and after he has prostrated himself and bowed, he rises and takes the chalice with both hands, while the deacon holds the foot of the chalice with one hand. When the priest receives the deacon says: ‘The Blood of our Lord.’ Then the deacon puts the chalice on the altar…” (Beyond East and West. Washington: Pastoral Press. 1984. 105-106.)

Possibly, Gregory Dix can shed further light on Canon 18 in regards to the term ‘offer’.

“The Greek terminology concerning the oblation (prosphora) is through the pre-Nicene period quite clear, and does not (as a rule) vary from one writer to another. The communicant ‘brings’ (prosenegkein) the prosphora; the deacon ‘presents it or ‘brings it up’ (anapherein); the bishop ‘offers’ (prospherein) it. (Cf. Canons 1, 2 and 3 of the Council of Ancyra, c. AD 314). The prosphora itself is at all points ‘the gifts of Thy holy church’, but the ‘liturgies’ of each order in connection with it are proper to each order and not interchangeable. It is the special eucharistic ‘liturgy’ of each order which distinguishes it and constitutes it a separate ‘order’ in the organic Body of Christ.” (The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre Press. 1970. 111-112.)

Each ‘order’ has its limits and it appears that deacons have assumed a ‘liturgy’ which is not their own, according to the canons or custom. Nicaea reflects an understanding of liturgy and orders that is organic and corporate. There is one body of the Church and it has a diversity of orders within it. Each order has its own functions and those functions are not to be assumed by another order.

Very importantly and something that can easily be missed in Canon 18 is that deacons are in a relationship to the bishop as his ministers. The principle is clear: one cannot be a deacon without being a deacon to someone, and in the Church one is a deacon because one is a diakonos (minister) of one’s bishop. But this is not the relationship that presbyters have to the bishop for the diakonoi are subject to the presbyters. Clearly Nicaea does not hold to the concept that presbyters are also deacons.

Where and with whom one sits sheds light upon one’s order in the Church. The presbyters form a college about the bishop, with the bishop as the head of that college. The bishop’s cathedra (chair of teaching) is to be found either in the eastern apse facing the assembly or on the solea in the nave facing the east. From here the bishop presides not only over the entire assembly of the Church but is seen physically as the head of the presbyteral college. The presbyters sit to the left and right of the bishop forming either a ‘U’ or semi-circle about him. The deacons stand, for by taking this posture, they can more easily fulfill their liturgical duties either as assistants to the bishop or keeping order in the liturgical assembly. The diakonoi relate to the bishop not as a college but individually, each one acting as designated by the bishop as an agent, intermediary, courier or assistant who gets something done at the command of the bishop.

Those deacons who will not conform to Canon 18 will be punished by suspension from the diaconate.

July 18, 2012

Section 17 of Orientalium ecclesiarum, (November 21, 1964)can be outlined in the following manner:

There is a “desire or a wish” on the part of the holy council/synod that the permanent diaconate be restored in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The reason for this restoration is that the “ancient discipline/legislation concerning the sacrament of orders in the Eastern Churches may regain its force/flourish once more”.

There is a recognition that the permanent diaconate “has fallen into disuse”.

(Deacons in the Moscow Patriarchate before the iconostasis.Photo: partriarchia.ru)

Let us parse each of these points in order to obtain a clear understanding of the context of section 17. Point 3 is where this commentary will begin. When the council mentions that the permanent diaconate “has fallen into disuse” what is it referring to? While in the Western Catholic Church it was not possible canonically to serve in the diaconate without the explicit intention of receiving ordination to the presbyterate, thus there was only a transitional diaconate, such was not the case in the Eastern Catholic Churches. The canonical tradition had not eradicated the diaconate as a permanent order in the East as it had in the West. One of the Titles of Eastern Catholic canonical legislation, namely, Cleri sanctitati, which governed the Eastern Catholic Churches until the promulgation of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, in Canons 60-77 sets forth explicitly the obligations of clerics, which includes reference to deacons who will remain in the diaconate for their life. Thus, at least in theory the diaconate remained a permanent order in the Eastern Catholic Churches as it also has with the Orthodox.

It can also be noted that the Latin word sacerdos found in these canons refers to all three degrees of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, namely episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate. This is certainly not the current language of the West where the diaconate is not considered part of the priesthood, yet the Orthodox Church still sees it as such. (Cf. John Chryssavgis. Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia: The Diaconate Yesterday and Today. Brookline: Massachusetts. Holy Cross Orthodox Press. 2009; Boris Bobrinskoy. The Mystery of the Church: A Course in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Translated by Michael Breck. Yonkers: New York. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 2012. 213-216.)

The liturgical tradition in the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church bears witness to this understanding also for we read in the Order for Setting Apart of a Reader or Cantor, “Son, the first degree of the priesthood is that of reader.” (Archieratikon, Rome. 1974. 229.) Thus, this is another interesting difference in the theology and practice of the Eastern Churches, and the current Roman Catholic understanding of the diaconate.

Robert Clément, S.J. writing in 1966 shortly after the promulgation of Orientalium ecclesiarum addresses the situation of the diaconate in both the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. (Cf. “Situation Présente du Diaconate en Orient” in P Winninger et Y. Congar. Le Diacre Dans L’Eglise et Le Monde D’aujourd’hui. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. 1966. 63-70.) He states that among the Chaldean Catholics there are 5 deacons and 3 for the Syrians. He mentions that among the Maronites deacons can be found in the monasteries but he gives no numbers. He mentions that in the Orthodox Church in Russia in 1914 there were 15,210 deacons, 50,150 presbyters and 149 bishops for 100 million faithful in 67 dioceses. Yet in the Orthodox Church in Greece, Clément tells us that it is rare to find deacons who will serve permanently in that order. There, deacons are awaiting ordination to the presbyterate or are found on the staff of bishops where they frequently go on to the episcopate itself; sometimes only a day or two after presbyteral ordination. We can easily see that among the Eastern Catholics and among some of the Orthodox that the diaconate as a permanent order “had fallen into disuse”.

(Polyeleos on the Feast of St. Sergius at the Trinity St. Sergius Lavra. Photo: patriarchia.ru)

Why was this the case? There seems to be a number of reasons.

When there is no remuneration for deacons as there is for presbyters, the diaconate as a permanent rank declines. The Russian Orthodox Church paid the deacons not only for their liturgical services but also had them employed as teachers of religion in the schools. In the Eastern Catholic Churches as in the Orthodox Church in Greece it was often difficult to find funding for priests let alone deacons.

The Eastern Catholic Churches adopted an educational paradigm for their clergy that was closely modeled after the Post-Tridentine practice as found in the Latin West. In this case the minor orders and the diaconate were conceived of and practiced solely as transitional steps to the real goal of the presbyterate.

Why be a deacon if you can be a priest? This mindset develops from number 2 above. The minor orders and the diaconate are seen as only canonical requirements for ordination to the presbyterate, and the canonical practice is no longer reflecting a period when the cursus honorum meant a real training period of many years in each of the minor orders and the diaconate. For example a man was not to be ordained a deacon before 25 years of age and not a presbyter before 30 years of age. Therefore, he would have at least 5 years of real diaconal service and training before ordination to the presbyterate. The cursushonorum existed as a functional training ground for clergy before the seminary system that followed the Council of Trent. But following Trent the training was shifted to the seminary and the cursus honorum lost its original raison d’être. This being the case, a man often spent very little time in the diaconate or any of the minor orders. The requirements became little more than legalistic that had little to do with real ecclesial life.

Number 3 above leads to a mindset of “he who can do more can do less”. Thus, the priest can do everything a deacon can do and more. When there is no deacon present at liturgical services, the diaconal functions are assumed either by the priest or lay servers, or lay readers. At more solemn services among the Eastern Catholics it was not uncommon for a priest to vest as a deacon and serve as such. This was the common practice in the Latin West also, for there is an understanding in Western theology that the priest is still a deacon after ordination to the presbyterate. (This matter is still to be addressed fully in Catholic theology and liturgical practice. This is not only a sacramental matter but also one that goes to the heart of the apostolic ministerial practice, pneumatology and ecclesiology.)

Thus, we can see that a number of diverse factors and historical contingencies led to the reality of the diaconate as a permanent order in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well as some of the Orthodox Churches being little more than a vestige. What was established by the Apostles as part of the apostolic ministry had atrophied in most local Churches into little more than a transitional period for the purpose of fulfilling a canonical obligation. The liturgical tradition as exemplified in the texts bore witness to an active diaconate but the reality was something quite different. This certainly raises serious questions about the self-consciousness of the Church. It seems that the bishops of Vatican II were acutely aware of the need to address this matter and as we will see their reasons were rooted in the patristic witness to the apostolic Church.